Skip Navigation
Asklemmy @lemmy.ml
Melatonin @lemmy.dbzer0.com

What's the best way of dealing with Maga hatred, white power, genocide denial and other things you see a Lemmy user espousing?

If I ignore/block them, it allows them to continue unchallenged. I hate getting into it with them, since they are a baseline idiot.

I guess that's it. I saw a person with a 6 month account spouting garbage, was gonna block but thought perhaps that wasn't morally responsible. Wondering what the options were.

151 comments

  • i find this very satisfying: gently disagreeing with them via a short single positive message like "gay people do deserve respect", then letting them throw a very lengthy, time-invested tantrum before gently and completely disagreeing with their comment with another short sentence, over and over until they get tired.

    i find that both very funny and I'm putting out positive messages that negate their bigotry without too much time or effort.

    that's just if you have the time and inclination to engage, you aren't morally obligated to subject yourself to abusive behavior.

    if it's real bad, they're probably violating a rule, and reporting them will get them banned

    • Ooo, that's good.

      • I’m going to post this idea by agent_nycto, because it’s another good way to deal with them, especially if you run into them IRL:

        I don't think you should be quiet, it makes them feel like everyone is agreeing with them and makes everyone miserable. Time to introduce you to my favorite game to play with conservatives, Politics Judo!

        So you hear them rant about a thing. Some dumbass talking point. Let's use gun control. It's pretty easy to know in advance what the talking points are since they never shut up and parrot the same problem and solution over and over. "Shouldn't take guns, it's a mental problem not a gun problem".

        Things are basically boiled down to a problem and a solution. A lot of people try to convince people that the problem isn't what people think it is, and that's hard to do. Even if they are just misinformed, it feels like trying to dismiss their fears.

        So what you do is you agree with the problem, then use lefty talking points as the solution.

        "Oh yeah, gun violence is pretty bad! And I love the Constitution, we shouldn't mess with that!" (Use small words and also throw in some patriotism, makes them feel like you're on their side. You want to sound like a right wing media con artist) "so instead of taking guns away, we should instead start having more, free, mental health care in this country. Since it's a mental health problem and these people are crazy, that is the solution that makes the most sense!" (Don't try to get them to agree to your solution, just state it as the obvious one)

        It becomes weaponized cognitive dissonance. Their brains fry because you said the things you should to agree with them, flagged yourself as an ally, but then said the thing they were told is the bad and shouldn't want.

        If they try to argue with your solution, rinse and repeat to a different talking point. "Oh yeah it might cost more, and we shouldn't have to pay more for it, so we should get the rich people who are screwing average hard working Americans over by not paying taxes to do that. We should shut down tax loopholes and increase funding to the IRS so they can go after them instead of the little guy"

        Always sound like you're agreeing with them, but giving solutions that they disagree with that seem to be off topic but are related.

    • A good thing about this approach is you're not wasting your time (much). It doesn't matter if they're trolling for attention or entertainment if you remain passive/neutral and give them so little to work with.

      Imagine instead giving them an originally-written 200 word argument and then they just reply "didnt read" - wasted your time on a bad faith prank. (that said - perhaps your audience isn't the troll, but rather, the lurkers. I would only consider putting in effort if the comment isn't being downvoted to the bottom holding an anchor)

  • Did you report this person? Racists are usually quickly dispensed with, because if they’re allowed to continue unchallenged then this will become a Nazi bar.

    • For sure, it's great to be in communities like ours and theirs where staff actually boot them all out, and it's also useful to know tactics for treating those people if they're in places which idealistically believe in free speech more than saving lives and stuff. Luckily I can't think of any active instances which don't have basic anti-bigotry rules, but it's entirely possible for one to federate and not earn a full-instance ban, at least from the more liberal instances. I don't think it's enough to say 'skill issue don't use a bad instance', for example Wolfballs remained in the scene for a while until they were finally considered too rabid for most instances to tolerate.

  • Don't feed the trolls. If you find a bigot willing to have a good faith debate, maybe, but there is no reasoning with cult members. They have to want to change.

  • Very rarely do people like this actually want to discuss why they are the way they are. They don't care about your opinion, and will actively react negatively to any push back. Of course, you can always block them, but there is another choice

  • Up to you? I used to hang out on a WN part of reddit back when that was allowed and debate people but that's not a thing anymore. The problem is you have utterly no idea if you're getting through to anyone. I do feel like people had to back off their angry racial ideas and adopt a softer "racial zoo" argument that made it seem like all they wanted was to preserve racial diversity rather than eliminate any particular race. I mean at times I wonder if they were looking in the mirror going "is that really why I have this swastika tattoo?" but I have no idea.

    I do think the far right cannot survive much scrutiny of its ideas because they are very irrational, but to be honest the left has done a terrible job pointing this out. I know many people even on the moderate right feel like there's a grain of truth to racism that they'll admit in private with other white people, but then once you confront racism and question common assumptions about race* all that falls apart. Many attack racism as a moral failing and that doesn't work because it makes it sound like the truth is being suppressed for moral reasons.

    *The most pernicious being the idea that a person can have a single race on a fundamental level that isn't up for debate

    • WN/neo-nazi communities are classic candidates for bad faith ""debating"". I recall a video interviewing former WNs, one was a WN forum moderator who openly said they didn't believe half the things they were saying, like Great Replacement theory. Fascists (incl. Nazis) could not care less about democracy and liberalist ideology, they treat the liberalist expectation of free speech as a weakness to exploit - they'll gladly hide behind cops and claim to be censored until they have the power to control cops and own social platforms.

      Jean-Paul Sartre hit the nail on the head in their 1946 essay criticizing the antisemites:

      "Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past."

      See also: The Alt-Right Playbook: The Card Says Moops

  • i just like to tell them all the horrible ways they should die. it's about as effective as anything else (not at all)

  • Ignore it. It is really that simple. Like what are you going to do?

    Get into arguments because someone disagrees with you on the internet? LOL

    Life is already short enough as it is.

  • Realistically I think your options are to ignore/block, or confront them against your better judgement. Which, as you know will likely constitute going circles for hours before having to bow out because your brain is coming out of your ears. The problem with both these options is that they likely have the same outcome. However, the latter will also leave them resenting you and the rest of the “online leftists” even more than they already do. In fact, it will probably embolden them in their pursuit of radical centrism just to own the “tankies”.

    That’s just my experience and observations tho…

  • My answer is that it depends on several factors. The first and least impactful thing you can do (and that's in terms of both you and the other person) is to just block them. Next step up is that if they're not on a big instance that you get content from regularly, just block their instance. After that, report them to your instance owner - they might get blocked from interacting with your instance. And the more heavy-duty action is to reach out to their instance owner with evidence and make your concerns known - then if they get booted, you can continue as you were; and if they don't, block the instance.

151 comments